Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 January 4

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 4

Of a [period]

For some reason, I go all queasy when I hear people using expressions like "I like to do such and such of an evening", "He regularly does blah blah of a weekend", etc. Putting my queasiness aside and subjecting it to close scrutiny, what's going on with this expression? "Of" doesn't answer the question "when" in any other contexts, does it? How long has it been around, and is it associated with any particular groups of speakers? Could one say "of weekends", or is it always "of a weekend"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Or "of a morning". It's a very old expression. My grandmother used it a lot. I suppose it's shorter than "during the morning" or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Another midwestern expression that would probably drive you crazy is what could be called the "dangling with". Example: "I'm going to the store." "Can I come with?" and/or "We were going to return this item. I'll take with." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OED says "51. a. At some time during, in the course of, on.

App. taking the place of the Germanic and Old English genitive of time. Now only implying regularity or repetition (as also in sense 51b), e.g. in of an evening, of a Sunday afternoon. Now chiefly regional" and gives examples from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to 1999. --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

... so would it be considered "non-standard" by some? I can't imagine anyone using the expression in formal writing, but it is common in my own (regional) speech (northern England). Dbfirs 10:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See also wikt:of a.—msh210℠ 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, not obsolete here, but probably becoming so. Dbfirs 08:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so of a <singular> seems to be a fossilised form, and it can't be adapted to of <plural> or of the .... Is that right? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of non-specific, contrasting with something like "in the morning", for example, which implies tomorrow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean by that, but thanks anyway. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Of the morning" sounds wrong to me, and I do use "of a morning". I'd say it's specifically indefinite. Steewi (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard "of the morning", at least not in this context. I was thinking of examples: "I like to go jogging of a morning", vs. "I'll be getting up at 6:00 in the morning" (i.e. tomorrow, or whichever day is being referenced). "of a morning" almost sounds like "every morning", and it's possible there's some connection there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis

What's the biggest possible emphasis you can put on a word? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When writing a word. Bolding it, italicising it, writing it in all-caps, making it bigger... how else can you put more emphasis on it? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Colouring it, decorating it, having flashing lights surround it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. The question effectively doesn't have an answer - maybe you could hyperlink the word to an audio file of the word being shouted in a very loud voice, or being sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Or illuminate the word in gold leaf? Or … The question does make sense in certain contexts; many publications (including WP) have a "Manual of Style", which is an attempt to ensure that a set of standards are maintained for publications by a specific organisation (such as a newspaper or online encyclopædia). Such a guide will commonly specify how emphasis is to be achieved and may prohibit certain combinations ("do not use both bold and italic", for example). The WP Manual of Style is to be found here, and states that italics should be used for emphasis. Tonywalton ^Talk 13:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Print it in a bold color? Example: A newspaper announces that we've declared war on somebody. The entire front page, occupied solely by "WAR!" printed in blood-red, or maybe international orange. There's really no one right answer. It all depends on what you're printing, what you want to emphasize, that defines what you want to be an attention-getter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Or as I saw in some bit of satire, "WA-" in huge letters, with small print saying, "Headline continued on page 2." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On an ordinary computer with the same font and size, UNDERLINING it. If you're not using a browser or word-processing program that offers a button to do so, you can enclose it between the HTML tags "<u>" and "</u>". —— Shakescene (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One question does strike me (prompted by BB's suggestion of using colour): What techniques are used in Braille to provide emphasis? I see the Library of Congress Braille Transcription Manual specifies the "italic sign" (⠨) and there's also a "following letter is a capital" sign (⠠). Are there other Braille idioms which are commonly used to provide emphasis? Tonywalton ^Talk 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

>>>LIKE THIS?!<<< --Kjoonlee 14:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

very funny! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mac/Mc surname questions

And before I begin, a happy new year to the Language forum :)

Two ickle questions about Mac/Mc surnames, if you please.

a) What is the etymology or origin of "MacQueen" or "McQueen".

and partly related, I guess, b) Why has there been no "assimilation" of the adjacent "hard c" in such versions as "McKenzie" or "MacCulloch"? By which I mean, why not "MacUlloch" or "McEnzie" ?

Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 09:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For (a), McQueen (surname) gives some possibilities. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll take a look! doktorb _words^deeds 11:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's said that "Mc" (as in McNamara) is more Irish, and "Mac" (as in Macdonald) more Scottish. But I don't think that's hard and fast. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly in Scotland both "Mac" and "Mc" are now used with little obvious preference, though of course any individual family now only uses one form or the other for their own name: they are largely orthographic rather than etymological variations. Also, bear in mind that the Scots originally were Irish, so the different spellings probably occurred by chance when spelling was a matter of individual choice by each writer, and began to be fixed only after the advent of printing.

Rarer and old fashioned, but not unknown, is the third form "M'" where what I have represented with an apostrophe is (or was) actually a "turned comma" which in some typefaces may differ a little from an apostrophe proper. Some of the novels by the SF writer J. T. McIntosh printed in the 1950s and '60s appeared with his name in the "M'Intosh" form. When I worked in Scotland in the '70s and '80s, the frequency of Mac/Mc/M' names meant that for manual filing and other alphabetisation purposes some organisations treated Mac/Mc/M' as a separate letter falling between L and M (the -ac/-c/-' were not distinguished between: secondary alphabetisation commenced with the next-occurring letter).

As far as assimilation with following C/K goes, this is already complete or near-complete in pronunciation, but is presumably retained in spelling because the Mac/Mc/M' is still widely understood to be a distinct semantic element (meaning, of course, "son of"). Note however that in many individual family names, the capitalisation of the element following Mac/Mc has already been lost. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When I first encountered the M'Naghten Rule (governing criminal insanity), I had no idea how to pronounce it. Is a "turned comma" the same as an inverted comma? —— Shakescene (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, Mc is often written M^c, which not only emphasises that it is a separate semantic element (and still alphabetically considered before M in a lot of systems in the UK), but also seems like halfway between Mc and M'. 86.178.73.74 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that reply. doktorb _words^deeds 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Scots "were" Irish? That seems dubious at best. Rimush (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the original Scots were probably from Ireland. Briefly, here is the history. There was a tribe called the Scots that lived in Ireland and began spreading to the Inner Hebrides in the first centuries of the present era. This tribe conquered much of what is now western Scotland, merged with the indigenous people (perhaps Picts) through intermarriage and founded the Kingdom of the Scots. The Kingdom of the Scots conquered the Kingdom of the Picts, covering the eastern Highlands. In time, the people of the Highlands, whether of Scots or Pictish descent or some combination, came to be known as Scots. During the 9th and 10th centuries, Norsemen settled along parts of the coast and even dominated some areas, but they, too merged with the already mixed local population and their descendants came to identify as Scots. During the 10th and 11th centuries, the already mixed Scots people conquered what are now the Lowlands of Scotland. Even though most of the people in the eastern Lowlands spoke a Northumbrian dialect of Old English (the basis for the modern Scots language), the Lowlanders, too, came to be known by the late middle ages as Scots. So the Scots who were Irish are not the same as the Scots of today, though they are one of the many peoples among the ancestors of present-day Scots. Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) The mainstream historical view has long been that a tribe of Gaels, in Latin the Scoti/Scotii, from the north of Ireland invaded the west of what is now "Scotland" bringing their Gaelic language (with its "Mac-" element) to a hitherto non Gaelic-speaking area, establishing the Kingdom of Dál Riata aka Dalriada in opposition to the then-indigenous Brythonic-speaking Kingdom of the Picts. In time the two peoples were united by force under Kenneth MacAlpin as the Kingdom of Alba, and for various reasons the Gaelic language and patronymics subsequently became predominent. The Kingdom was in time renamed the Kingdom of Scotland, and also acquired a substantial admixture of "Anglo-Saxon"-derived and -speaking population. So while the modern Scots are indeed far from solely "Irish" in ancestry, in a purely linguistic discussion of the use of a Gaelic-derived term the statement is, I submit, not misleading.

I am aware, as a former Scottish resident, that the history summarised above has a good many complications, some details of which have come under challenge, but I am not aware that the overall picture (no pun intended) is seriously in question. If it is, please direct me to appropriate Wikipedia or other references. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To further complicate things, some of those modern Scots then moved back to Ulster, which is part of the reason why Northern Ireland is somewhat distinct from the south. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have heard preachers referring to Robert Murray M'Cheyne as Robert Murray Mmmmmcheyne. Marnanel (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Plural vs. singular possession

I've been thinking about a (potential) grammatical ambiguity. Compare "They should make it a top priority in their life" with "They should make it a top priority in their lives". The first is ambiguous because it could mean either that the collective shares the object (the life) or that each in the collective is assigned a life. The second is ambiguous because it doesn't make clear whether each in the collective is assigned one life or more than one life. Is there an ambiguity, or am I just thinking about the construction too mathematically? Furthermore, which would be more correct in the case that I wanted to mean "Each person, in their life, should make it a top priority"? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This happens to be vigorously-debated topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (several current threads). In the second sense, should one write "Each person in their life", "Each person in his or her life", or (using the older convention that's now rather deprecated of including both sexes within the masculine) or "Each person in his life" (cf. Shakespeare's Seven Ages of Man)? Even if someone could show that your logic is faulty (which I doubt), the emphasis and nuance are important rhetorically. Using the singular exhorts each person individually, while the plural suggests a common goal, achieved by common effort. ¶ However, as a matter of style, I'd try to find something fresher, sharper and more forceful than the overused (if sometimes unavoidable) "make it a top priority". —— Shakescene (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the many cases where real language is more robust than many people give it credit for. Yes, there is a formal ambiguity, but very little risk of actual ambiguity. --ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were to stress the individual aspect (one on one), it might be better, if possible, to find some unclumsy way of saying "each person in his or her life". "Their" almost always reduces the force of an individual imperative, exhortation or description. For example, "each man enjoys his moment of peace and quiet" or "every woman must face her moment of truth" have more impact than "everyone enjoys their moment[s] of peace and quiet" and "everyone must fact their moment[s] of truth". Unfortunately, English vocabulary doesn't make it easy to do this grammatically and gracefully without making invidious choices about gender. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since, generally speaking, there's no limit to the supply of new words and expressions, why does the demand for a new pronoun not result in a new one? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Some have tried, with a construct like "s/he" or "xe", which may work OK in writing but not in the spoken word. Ultimately, "the people" decide what the language is. More than 20 years ago, an English instructor told us that "they", "them", "their", etc., like it or not, were destined to be used as third person singular - and it's coming true. I do it myself a lot. It's much less awkward and, frankly, much less annoying than the constant "he or she" stuff. And why don't we alternate between "he or she" and "she or he"? Why does the man come first? Using "they", it's a non-issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See Gender-neutral pronoun, Dennis Baron (author of "A Chronology of the Word That Failed"), Spivak pronoun, etc. "Thon" was actually listed in a respectable mainstream late 19th-century or early 20th-century dictionary of English... AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tea, some tea and a tea

What do you make of it when people, for instance, ask their hostess for tea and say "Can I please have some tea?" vs. "Can I please have a tea?" Seems to be that the former is more correct, as it would be for coffee and anything else in a cup, whereas asking someone for "a Snapple" is appropriate, because the Snapple drink is in a discrete volume within its bottle. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Can I please have a tea?" is "Can I please have a cup of tea?". A cup is a discrete object, so the indefinite article makes sense. "Can I please have some tea?" sounds more correct though. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See Measure words. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is the activity one is suggesting then "a tea" seems appropriate. If the reference is focussed on the liquid then "some tea" seems like it might be best. Bus stop (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "some tea" is only appropriate if the tea will be poured from a teapot; you are, therefore, partaking of some of the tea already brewed. Otherwise, you're not really having "some" of anything, rather an individual cup of tea. Maedin\^talk 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid"? If I haven't misremembered the lyrics, three lines were "Will you feel free/To take some tea/With me?" —— Shakescene (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it might make a difference whether the singer was inviting Rita to drink tea with him or eat tea with him. Marnanel (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tea and oranges that come all the way from China can be good, too. PhGustaf (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're talking about carry-out, I'd associate "take" with drugs, rather than food or drink. Thus I'd be more likely to wonder if he was inviting her to smoke/snuff/chew/mainline it, rather than eat it. -- 128.104.49.12 (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to use "a tea" if I'm talking about a particular amount - for example, ordering a cup (if I wanted more, I'd ask for "two teas", etc). If I'm asking for an amount which is not actually or notionally specified, I'd use "some tea" - for example, if I'd like a pot to share, or an urn for a meeting. Warofdreams talk 23:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Modifiers also make a difference. Personally, I would never say "a tea"--it just sounds awkward on my lips. But "could I have a green tea" or "I'll take a oolong tea, please" are fine, and I'm pretty sure I've said them before. (In fact, with modifiers, the awkwardness reverses itself for me..."some green tea" or "some oolong tea" sound terribly stilted to me.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So if you're in line at a Chinese restaurant, would you order some chicken and garlic sauce, even though there is obviously a predetermined size of c&gs (probably in the form of a specific size container), or a c&gs? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was with you until the last example. Rjanag is right, "I'll have a Long Island Tea" is the ONLY way to order it!

And, in the interest of completeness, I think the preferred option in most of the cases where your hostess has asked what you will have to drink, the best answer has been overlooked. It is simply, "I'll have tea".

--DaHorsesMouth (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Either one is grammatically correct; technically, if you order some chicken and garlic sauce, you are asking for some quantity of chicken and sauce to be spooned onto your plate; whereas if you order a chicken and garlic sauce, you are using "chicken and garlic sauce" as the name of the dish, so you are asking for one particular dish. If the latter is advertised as a dish that includes side dishes or a drink or something, then asking for a C.A.G.S. is unambiguously asking for the entire dish as advertised; whereas if you ask for some C.A.G.S., then it is a little uncertain whether you are asking for the entire dish as advertised, or just for the scoops of food. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The expressions "a tea" or "a coffee" seem to be Britishisms. Americans seem more apt to say "some tea" or simply "tea", as Horse notes above; typically in an amount that's understood, based on the menu. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If I was to ask for "a tea", I'd be referring to a Snapple or some prepackaged container of tea. If I was to ask for "some tea" or "a cup of tea", I'd be asking for 'fresh' or recently poured/brewed tea. Asking for "tea" could be either. L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-packaged tea? Quelle horreur!! What will they think of next? Alansplodge (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Column

In the column "Tone letters" the ipa symbol is followed by a number in parenthesis. What does this mean? Hakka_(language)#Tones174.3.123.13 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the link in the "Tone letters" column heading, the section Tone contour#Transcription in the article you wind up at seems to explain the significance of the numerals. Deor (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It indicates the contour of the tone. e.g., 53 starts high and ends mid; 44 starts high-mid and ends high-mid; 213 starts low-mid, dips low, and rises back to mid. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The simple version - 1 is low, and 5 is high; 3 is mid. It's a system invented by Yuenren Chao, one of my heroes. Steewi (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

simper

If a person smiles for the camera, is the smile a simper? Thanks.Rich (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Wiktionary: simper. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The simper answer is sometimes, but not necessarily. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's Rogers Hornsby smiling for the camera and pointing to his Chicago Cubs logo, one of the many teams that would eventually can him, but he kept smiling.[1] The question is, does that smile qualify as a simper, or is it superior to a simper? I think he's at least trying to present a real smile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rogers Hornsby it may be but he is neither simpering, smiling or pointing in my link. Richard Avery (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This: [2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a simper in my personal estimation (too much genuine humour in the eyes?), but it's hard to judge from a photograph because, I suggest, an element of simpering lies in the subtle timing of its changing and holding of facial expressions, which a still photo can't capture. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's probably just a matter of (1) timing and (2) how talented they are at smiling for the camera. I initially went looking for Ty Cobb, because I've seen photos with him grinning broadly, but all I could find looked more like a simper, i.e. a "weak smile". Babe Ruth's smile looked a little more genuine. But it could be like I said in the first sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's kind of a parody of this situation in A Hard Day's Night. George is close-up to a photographer, and with each quick snap, George is changing expression. The supposed end result is a bunch of photos displayed on-screen, each with a totally different expression, all taken within about 30 seconds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wiktionary says it's to smile in a frivolous, self-conscious manner. There seems to me to be something more negative in its connotation:phony, smirking. I think this negative connotation is (correctly) reflected in your answers above.But many very nice, likable people are selfconscious and frivolous, at least sometimes. Since smiling for the camera, or saying "cheese" at the request of a photographer is selfconscious and not wholly genuine, I guess it's simpering. But since it's so traditional in the USA anyway to smile in that situation, it seems to me to be incorrect to call it simpering. Does simper get its negative connotation from similarity to simp? Because I wonder if it's a device by fiction writers to get the reader to dislike a character for having a facial expression, simply by it's simpilarity to the word simp. Thanks for all your replies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.160.248 (talk)04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Rich (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My old Webster's does not have an etymology for it. It just says, "v.i. To smile in a silly manner. n. An affected, silly smile; a smirk." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Webster's? Doesn't anybody have a Funk_&_Wagnalls any more? PhGustaf (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I swapped mine for a mayonnaise jar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)